Dissident Voice

On
Tuesday, September 16, 2003, George W. Bush said what virtually every other
senior member of his administration had been going out of their way to refute.

"We've
had no evidence," he told CNN's John King, "that Saddam Hussein was
involved with the September the eleventh. No."

This
came as a shock to the 70 percent of Americans who support the invasion and
occupation of Iraq because they believed Saddam was a mastermind of 9/11 or
that Iraqis were among the pilots who hijacked our planes.

But
the bigger shock may be to members of Congress, who, hearing that, may now
conclude that Bush just admitted he had explicitly misled them.

It
started in the months leading up to the 2002 elections. In many parts of the
nation Democrats were doing well in the polls, and it looked like Republicans
may lose control of the House along with the Senate control they'd lost earlier
when Jim Jeffords left the party in disgust.

An
October Surprise was needed to turn 9/11 into a partisan issue the Republicans
could exploit, some partisans suggest, so congressional allies of the Bush
Administration trotted out Public Law 107-243, "A Joint Resolution to
authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

The
law specified that:

"Whereas
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United
States...by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations. ..."

"Whereas
members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the
United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

"Whereas
Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,
including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States
citizens;

"Whereas
the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity
of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by
international terrorist organizations;

"...
the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to
launch a surprise attack against the United States ... and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from
such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;...

"Whereas
Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ...
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or
organizations;..." that the President could use force against the perpetrators
of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.

Thus,
the President was given a blank check to "defend the national security of
the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;" a nation
whose Air Force had been destroyed and who UN inspectors had just said was
almost certainly lacking any major (WMD) offensive or defensive weapons.

The
law further required that Bush notify the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate (the Vice President of the U.S.) before exercising the
war powers that were being handed him, and to justify his actions at that time.

The
passage of Public Law 107-243 on October 16, 2002 caused a national uproar, and
enabled the Republicans to paint the Democrats as war-wimps, weak on defense,
and only grudgingly willing to go along with efforts to get the guy who, as
Public Law 107-243 said, "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001..."

It
was one of Karl Rove's shining moments: the Republicans swept the elections a
month later. The corporate aristocracy was on the move, quickly staking out
more and more of the public commons of America as its own territory.

By
March 2003, however, things were starting to turn against the Republicans
again. Dick Cheney was under investigation for Halliburton dealings, and on
March 5th an FBI agent who said the Bush administration had thwarted his
efforts to investigate 9/11 made the headlines by refusing to speak out on TV
"for fear of his job" according to Judicial Watch, who represented
him.

On
March 9th, Reuters reported that Halliburton had been awarded a contract to
fight oil well fires in Iraq. On March 11th, a GOP consultant was named in an
Enron investigation. On March 12th the Washington Post revealed that GOP
consultant Ralph Reed had received $300,000 from Enron before its collapse; and
the same day saw the Inquirer newspaper in London drop a bombshell that,
"[Halliburton] payments, which appear on Mr. Cheney's 2001 financial
disclosure statement, are in the form of 'deferred compensation' of up to $1m a
year."

Things
weren't going well.

On
March 18th, George W. Bush wrote to the Speaker of the House (Hastert) and the
President of the Senate (Cheney) invoking the powers granted him by Public Law
107-243. Initiating the invasion of Iraq, he wrote:

"[I]
determine that:... [Declaring war on Iraq and] acting pursuant to the
Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Thus
the invasion of Iraq and seizure of its oil fields, was, according to George W.
Bush, legally justified by 9/11.

But
now he says there's no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Which
will inevitably raise the question for many in Congress: Did George Bush
deceive them and the nation in October of 2002 and March of 2003, and, in
response to a reporter's question, inadvertently blurt out an admission of that
deception on September 16, 2003?

And,
if so, how will Congress respond?

Thom Hartmann (thom@thomhartmann.com) is the
award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a
syndicated daily talk show that runs opposite Rush Limbaugh in cities from coast
to coast. Visit his website: www.thomhartmann.com.His most recent book (September 2003) is The
Edison Gene. This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is
granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit
is attached and the title is unchanged.